idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If you were a trans woman trying to use a woman's restroom, and your license designated you as a woman, it would be in the establishment's best interest to allow you to use that restroom. Forcing you to use the mens room would be politically destructive for them. Even if no trans protection laws were passed preventing that, the political sh*tshow that would follow would teach business owners very quickly that it was in their best interest to accept the legal designation.
This is a bit different from the previous suggestion of "Let people go where they want".
But I have serious difficulty imagining any sizable population of people would request a change to their legal gender identity simply to give them a slightly better opportunity to peep on women in the restroom.
Again, no one was making that suggestion. I was saying that a lassiez faire
standard was an invitation for abuse.
What are you arguing for here Joph?
Nothing much beyond some sort of agreed upon standard. "Everyone do what they want" isn't a standard.
No really, we already have rules in place for this.
In the US, the rule is typically that the property owner sets the rules. If you're saying that trans people need or deserve protections against property owners that decide "Biological males go here, biological females go here" then there's something that needs to be discussed. If you're happy letting the management set the rules and everyone follows them without complaint then we're golden.
What we would be doing would be to segregate toilets not by simplistic ***, but by a the more nuanced and practical/wanted segregation by sexuality/orientation.
Not likely to happen anytime soon.